PRASANTA KR PRAMANICK Vs. UNION OF INDIA; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE; COMMANDANT, 52 BN , CRPF, SAMILPUR, JAMMU, JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 23.11.2001 passed by the Commandant 52 Bn., CRPF (respondent No.3) whereby and whereunder petitioner was dismissed from service.

(2.) The facts leading to this case are that the petitioner working in E-Coy of 52 Bn., applied for sixty days' earned leave in the month of December, 2000 which was sanctioned. Accordingly, he proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 11.12.2000 to 8.2.2001. He was supposed to resume his duty on 9.2.2001. However, before expiry of leave the petitioner sent a letter to Officer Commandant, E/52 also requesting therein to extend his leave for another sixty days. The said prayer was considered and rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed vide letters dated 9.2.2001, 1.3.2001 and 19.3.2001 to report back immediately. In response to that the petitioner replied that since he has has some domestic problem he will report on duty after 9.4.2001 but he did not report for duty till 19.4.2001. Under the said circumstance the Coy was declared as deserter w.e.f. 9.2.2001, that is from the date of unauthorised absence from duty. Consequently, a warrant of arrest was issued on 18.4.2001 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) Mr.I.Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself and that before passing dismissal order copy of the inquiry report was not served to the petitioner and thereby Disciplinary Authority committed illegality in passing the order of dismissal of the petitioner as non furnishing of the report to the delinquent amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, learned counsel referred to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India & Ors Vs Mohd Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588. Learned senior counsel, by elaborating his submission did state that the petitioner has specifically taken the plea in the petition that the copy of the inquiry report has not been served which in fact has not been denied specifically by the respondent in its counter affidavit and thereby it be accepted that copy of the inquiry report has not been furnished and on this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside.